Pentax 31mm limited

[dan_kreithen]

I know this will be a difficult question to answer, because everyone's standards

are different. I recently purchased a Pentax MX body, and am considering buying

the 31mm Limited lens, as 35mm is my favorite focal length. My question is:

how good is this lens really? By way of background, I'm used to using the 35mm

non-ASPH Summicron (Leica M mount lens), which I find to be completely

satisfactory, if not completely sharp wide open. I've used the Pentax 77mm

Limited at one time on a MX-5 body. I was unimpressed with the body, although

it was OK, but unfortunately I was not as impressed with the 77 Limited as I had

hoped to be, particularly when used wide open or stopped down only 1 stop.

There could have been an issue with focussing properly with the specific body I

used, of course, but my impressions were that the 77 was a bit on the soft side.

Of course, it sharpened up nicely when stopped down substantially, and had a

bit of the "3-D" feeling that everyone who uses this lens raves about. By way

of additional background, I care only about results on B&W negative film,

usually Ilford Delta 100, 400 or 3200 (shot at ISO800). I sold the lens and

body on after trying it, but I'm back for another try with Pentax due to them

being the only company that seems to want to cater to those of us who prefer

using primes, both on film and digital. Does anyone have a good subjective

impression of the performance of the 31mm Limited as compared to, say, the Leica

lens, or for that matter just on its own? Thanks.

[harvey_edelstein1]

You want to use Primes get a leica screw or m mount camera. The screw mount can use Leica, Contax, Canon, Nikon, Voigtlander and other prime glass. The M mount can be a modern VC Bessa RF and mount the new Zeiss, Leica, Konica, Minolta CL, Voigtlander and with adapter that mentioned screw mount lenses. All these prime choices. Leica make great f1.4 and f2 35mm lenses and VC makes a f1.2 that sells for $800 and performs well even wide open. All these lenses have at least 9 iris blades for good bokeh. These cameras live on Prime glass, and RF are best with wide angles. Their are a lot of 28mm and 25mm choices as well. I have one of the new Zeiss 25mm Biogons f2.8. Zeiss says this lens is the highest resolving lens they ever measured at 400lmm.

I have a Pentax Lx with most of the finders and was looking for an F2 28mm or 24mm and gave up after a long hunt. Even hard to find a reasonably priced Nikon 28mm f2.0 AIS and there is more old Nikon gear arround. A Bessa and a lens does not have to be an expensive Zeiss or Leica lens the Konicas and Voigtlanders are good too.

[dan_kreithen]

Understood. I already have an M6. So I agree about the choices for primes in M and screw mount. However, just as many others, the new M8 is out of the question, so I'm considering a Pentax digital. Hence the genesis of the question...

[harvey_edelstein1]

Dan since you mentioned the recent purchase of the MX body I was answering about film cameras only. I was focusing in on your desire to have good fixed primes. Since I have an LX I know how hard it is to find used what you want since the FA automated lenses don't feel as good as the k and M pentax manual lenses do for manual focus. I still feel that you can under these conditions find both the cameras and lens combos in the M mount and even the Contax G lenses are cheap now and really great lenses. I figure Zeiss, Voigtlander or someone else like Epson will have cheaper M digital eventually available for guys with a smaller budget.

[dan_kreithen]

Let's hope so, but the noises from Zeiss re: digital rangefinder body are not encouraging presently. Anyway, I was hoping the K10D might fit the bill in the meantime (which may be nearly forever!). I handled one this past weekend and it seems to be good value for the price. It is also of a size that I could imagine carrying around, unlike, say, the D200 or the 5D. And, importantly, the 21mm and 70mm Limited lenses are very nice (but frankly, I think the 70mm is overpriced by far - but hopefully the current price is Pentax milking early adopters and the price will fall once it's been on the market for a while). I'd like to have the 31mm also, but it is expensive and large by comparison. Everything I've read about it says that it is a killer lens - but then again, almost everything I've read about the 77mm lens said the same. Yet when I tried it out I was a bit disappointed (perhaps the designers were after different design goals than what I'm used to in lenses). I was just wondering if the 31mm is really all "they" say. If it is, then I'm willing to pay the price...

[chrisn]

Dan, was your 77 a silver lens or a black lens? I've heard from another 77 owner that he had a silver one that matched your description, then replaced it with a black 77 that performed much better.

 

I'm in the same situation you describe; I have an M4 with a 35/2 ASPH and a few other good lenses. My budget won't stretch to an M8, and for me the Limited lenses seem to come closest to the characteristics I like in the Leica gear. I have a black 77 and a DA40 pancake, and hope to acquire a 31 at some stage soon, all used with a *istDS and occasionally with a MX body and HP5+. You've reminded me I need to do some more shooting with the MX!

[chrisn]

And a shot with the 77, with HP5+. Just a bit of USM; not too much I hope.<div></div>

[dan_kreithen]

The one I tried was Silver, not black. I'm not sure why that should make a difference, unless the QC/QA procedure was different between batches or it was simply sample-to-sample variation. If it is variation, then I would have to say that if Pentax charges the money that more rarified lenses command (Leica, Zeiss) which they seem to be doing with the (film-based) Limiteds, then Pentax needs to tighten up their criteria. In a way, I'm glad to hear (even by rumor) that variation may be the culprit. I really want to like the Limiteds...they're so nicely constructed and beat the heck out of any lens I've seen out of the majors within the past 20 years or so.

[dougmiles]

Dan, I've only recently gotten the 31mm, too soon for me to have much experience with it... just one roll of Fuji 400. Looking at 2000 ppi scans it appears to be the winner "they" say it is. Can't really tell at this small size, but this shot is tack-sharp and even has a bit of nice background blur even at around f/5.6<div></div>

[p_l_jensen]

The 77 Limited is sharp wide open. Focusing at that aperture is critical, however. If there weren't any user errors the lens must have been a bad sample.

The 31 Limited is the best wide angle Pentax have ever made. That says a lot. Good luck to you if find something better from anyone else. For what its worth Popular Photography rated is as the best lens ever made.

[dan_kreithen]

As I mentioned above, it certainly could have been user error, misadjustment of the body, or some misadjustment of the autofocus in the body (although I did manual focus for a number of shots). A distant possibility is that it may have been a bad sample, although I am less likely to believe that than the body misadjustment or user error in my case. As far as finding something "better" from someone else...let's just say that I'm a firm believer in "good enough" for sharpness, which is what most people obsess over (that's what medium format is for, after all). After that, it is purely personal taste in determining whether one likes the rendering that a certain lens produces, which is why I had asked for "subjective impressions". I know that in the long run, the only real solution is for me to try one out...but if someone who has used other lenses that I DO have experience with and can (through experience) compare and contrast to the 31mm Limited, that would be useful to me. As far as Pop Photo goes, well, it's their job to sell product...I don't give their prose much credence (which is not to say they're wrong in this case).

[jim_a]

Dan,

 

I am of similiar thinking. I shoot mostly Leica M now with a 35 and 50. I cannot justify an M8. I am considering a K10D with the 21 and 40mm pancakes so satifsy my digital desires. I'm curious to hear you expand on your impressions of the K10D mated with the 21mm limited. BTW, the MX was my second camera, which I still have. It was a great camera.

[dan_kreithen]

I just got to handle the K10D with 21mm and 70mm briefly, and have seen no output from it yet. It struck me as a nice camera, but not as well built or solid as a D200. Then again, the D200 is a tank. As is usually the case, you get what you pay for. I imagine the output from the K10D will not be much different from any of the current bodies using the 10 Mpix Sony CCD. At any rate, I use my current and past digitals mostly as RAW engines, so I am not so concerned about in-camera processing. What I like about the Pentax line is that it allows the "old" model of camera and lens buying: you can sink money into prime lenses that are very good and well-built that you will keep pretty much forever if you so choose - and buy a less expensive body to use them on. As the technology changes, you can buy another body incorporating the latest, but you're not paying huge money for that. Neither of the big boys provide primes (that are non-legacy and of recent design) in the right focal lengths for me (that would be a 24, 35, and 80-100mm equivalent for me). Nikon and especially Canon have turned the equation on its head (only cheap legacy plastic AF primes - expensive bodies), to their profit, of course. My limited time (very limited!) with the K10D left me with the impression that it would be a fine machine to carry around all day, not too small and not too large. With the pancakes it's likely to be the digital of choice for me.

[brok]

Dan, I just bought 31/1.8 Ltd (black) and will soon shoot some "test pictures", if you are interested. I also shot <a href="http://b.kozicki.pl/album/nowe_szklo" target="_new">this</a> (hopefully) nice photo of my 2mnths old son yesterday (you will find 100% crop and full picture resized to 50%), lens stopped down to 2.8. The light was as poor as it gets - single bedside lamp from 1.5m distance, thus sensitivity used was ISO 800. As my current body (*ist DS) does not handle auto exposure well in bad light, it's also 1.25EV underexposed, which makes effective sensitivity around 2000 (and corresponding level of digital noise - DS is not that bad in this respect). There is also possible handshake at 1/13s (althought I cannot see much of it). Overall, I'm happy with this lens and am looking forward for using it as a standard one with K10D. Bear in mind that it is not very "AF-friendly", but I expect K10D to have much better AF drive than DS has.

[brok]

Sorry abot this attechment, only after sending it I found it has been battered by mspaint. I should have used different tool to make miniature, sorry again (moderator, could you pls. remove this post together with previously send attachemnt?)

[brok]

There is some softness visible on the picture, but it's mostly due to aggressive noise removal. During weekend I should have some time to shoot by the daylight.

[arturo_de_la_fuente]

Hi Dan.

 

Sorry to contribute so late to this thread. I hope you can read this.

 

I found enlightening similarities between some of your saying (and others' in this interesting thread) with my thinking, particularly when I learnt of several (film) Leica users talking about Pentax DSRL body coupled to pancake lenses.

 

A word of background: I am a Nikon user with tons of kit. My digital body is a D2X, which is a joy to use but it is big like a tank and weights a ton. I can not use it as a carry-all-around camera, and I miss a lot this kind of fresh, casual photography. I looked in the digital market for a camera for this purpose. Nikon has smaller bodies, but my problem is really the lens: there is no Nikon wideangle, small lens, and Nikon is neglecting the market of prime lenses (to the benefit of others, like Zeiss). The existing P&S are not good for me, especially at high ISO, and the models with good high ISO have no wideangle. I gave a thought to the M8, but building a system of M8 plus 2-3 fine lenses would cost me more than I can justify. Then I discovered the Pentax "limited" pancake lenses, and the K10D looks like a fine body for the price (and it comes with SR!). I was thinking that a K10D plus a limited 21mm and a 40mm or 70mm is what I need as a discreet camera, not too big, not too small, to carry around the neck. I do not intend to build a whole Pentax system with flashes and the like, nor to sell my Nikon kit.

 

Did you eventually buy the K10D? Does anybody think that a K10D with a couple of pancake lenses is a sound choice for a second camera for casual photography?

 

Thanks

 

Arturo

[dan_kreithen]

Sorry to follow up on this so late...I had forgotten this post but found it again just today. I eventually ended up buying the K10D, along with the 21mm Limited, 70mm Limited, 31mm Limited, 50mm/f1.4 and 180mm / f4 Voigtlander. My observations having used it for 4 or 5 months is that the K10D is an excellent camera - it's output when used with Lightroom B&W conversion really can look good with minimal effort, and I'd like to think that my standards are high. The 31mm Limited IS everything "they" say it is...fully the equal of the new 35mm Zeiss ZM and I would venture to say better than the 4th generation Summicron I own (I've never tried the ASPH version). It is a stunning lens, with it's own distinctive "look". I use it whenever possible. But since I'm a 35mm FOV kind of guy, I'm hoping for a FF Pentax body so I can really use this lens as my standard lens. The 21mm Limited is very good as a standard lens, just not as impressive as the 31mm - but it's so much smaller. The 70mm is excellent - but I would have expected that since mid-teles are the easiest lens to build. All in all I'm very impressed with the package. I admit I still don't know what happened with the original 77mm Limited I tried on film, but perhaps it was a bad sample after all. I have no regrets over buying the Pentax kit - although I would avoid their cheaper zooms (as I would by any manufacturer).

[ljt]

I have both the 31mm & 77mm Limited. The 31mm is sharpish, but the 77mm is shockingly sharp (to me). The 77mm also is contrastier - I have to turn the K10D's contrast setting down one notch to match the 31mm.

 

You can see both lenses in action here:

http://seeto.com/galleries/JunctionArtsFestival/

 

I used the 77 mostly at night, so if shots don't look v sharp, it's because I was trying to capture dancers moving quickly but sufficient light for only 1/30th or so.

 

While the shots aren't labelled (as to which lens), the tight shots that look telephoto are the 77.

[raymond_ho]

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/3203431591_4ff5b45123.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="500" height="334" />

HONGKONG,

shoot by 31mm.

[raymond_ho]

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3203431573_524010da79.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="500" height="334" />

I have both the 31mm & 77mm Limited.

And use K10D.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/k50d/sets/72157612679872368/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/k50d/sets/72157612679872368/</a>